Posted
by
kdawsonon Friday August 29, 2008 @09:55AM
from the our-own-sweet-way dept.

Scott Aaronson offers an intriguing call for ideas on how nerds can supercharge the political process this year. He's clearly an Obama admirer and phrases his challenge this way: "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?" But the question itself is not inherently partisan. The analogy Aaronson gives is to the Nadertrading idea in 2000 (which we discussed at the time). What's the Nadertrading for 2008? "The sorts of ideas I'm looking for are ones that (1) exploit nerds' nerdiness, (2) go outside the normal channels of influence, (3) increase nerds' effective voting power by several orders of magnitude, (4) are legal, (5) target critical swing states, and (6) can be done as a hobby."

That happened in Iowa City where I live. KCJJ (A local radio station known for their run ins with the court system) were threatened with a lawsuit for telling people on the air that republicans were being asked to vote on Wednesday to help prevent long lines at the voting places. Honestly, if you dont know what DAY you're supposed to go vote, you probably should stay home.

what if they had asked black people to vote on wednesday instead to prevent long lines?

a public broadcast medium making what appears to be a legitimate announcement (and yes i live in iowa and have heard their "parodies" which sound amazingly official) SHOULD be held responsible for their actions.

Just because you thought it was funny, doesn't mean it might not have disenfranchised many people.

Preventing people from casting legitimate votes, regardless of their political affiliation, race, religious background, or any other criteria covered under law, is both legally and morally irresponsible.

Preventing people from casting legitimate votes, regardless of their political affiliation, race, religious background, or any other criteria covered under law, is both legally and morally irresponsible.

And yes, for some reason this does include being stupid enough to fall for something like this in the first place.

Okay. Please don't even joke about that. There was a really extreme campaign in Florida where Republicans discouraged blacks, Hispanics, and other traditionally Democratic voters from going to the polls by saying things like, "If you have any outstanding traffic tickets, pay them before voting," and, "bring proof of citizenship," (and this discouraged people who WERE legitimately citizens, because they didn't really understand and they were afraid of losing what they had worked so hard to gain), and, of course, "election day changed to Wedsnesday."
Many people think that this was a big part of why the Democrats lost Florida. It's not funny, regardless of which side loses.
More examples:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30?language=printer [washingtonpost.com]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E5D6123FF935A2575BC0A9629C8B63 [nytimes.com]
Not funny, not appropriate.

The AC didn't say how he felt about it. He merely reported the fact that it happened.

Just because you thought it was funny...

I've read the comment several times, and I don't see how you got the impression he thought it was funny, or that he was making light of it. If you are taking issue with the remark "if you dont know what DAY you're supposed to go vote, you probably should stay home," I think you are off base. That comment is insightful, not funny.

You should direct your indignation at the radio station, not the person who reported on their actions.

I'd feel... well exactly how I feel because it has been done, many times. There was a widespread phone banking effort in heavily Democratic areas in Florida in 2000 reminding people to vote, on the following Tuesday. If you want to read a laundry list of such abuses, read the Conyers Committee Report on the elections in Ohio in 2004.

If this is a war (which it's not), then the good guys are the American electorate regardless of party affiliation, and the bad guys are the career politicians. If you don't want it to become a war, perhaps you should respect and educate your fellow citizens instead of deriding them and making it easier for the plutocracy to keep up the charade.

Douglas Adams again, because it's appropriate as usual:

"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this."It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...""You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?""No, nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.""Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy.""I did," said Ford. "It is.""So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?""It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.""You mean they actually vote for the lizards?""Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course.""But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?""Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in," said Ford. "Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them. They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

In the case of announcements of moving voting day for certain groups of people, only peoples stupidity prevented them from casting legitimate votes....nothing else.

Wow, way to completely exonerate the malicious, anti-democratic thugs who actually went out with the purpose to subvert an election. You have quite a moral compass there, I'm sure your mother is proud of you.

Not only is there no method of inspecting the "mechanics" or logic (one transistor or bit out of billions could throw an election) of these Black Box Voting machines, but the prospects of forensic investigation are extremely poor.

It is hard enough maintaining security/integrity in computerized transactions these days even when the identity of both parties is known and a statement/receipt is generated. But where the user is necessarily anonymous, accountability with computers goes out the window.

Computerized "ballots" (those not submitted as physical objects) can't truly exist and must be banned.

Close, but if you want to really fix electronic voting, there's one sure-fire way of doing it.

Figure out a way of rigging a vote for a believable candidate.

Describe exactly what you are going to do and how you are going to do it, and encrypt this document.

Send the encrypted document anonymously to all the media organisations you can think of in advance of the election.

Rig the vote.

After the election, send the decryption key to all the media organisations.

It's one thing to get somebody to admit the elections are riggable in theory. People don't really believe it until you show them. They still have faith in the process, or the government, or human nature. This way, you can get people to take notice without actually doing any real harm.

What you don't do is rig the election for an unbelievable candidate. That way, they immediately go into damage-control mode, make you out to be a prankster, and find some way of "retrieving" (e.g. making up) the "real" results. The point is that you wait long enough for everybody to congratulate themselves on another well-executed election, make all the acceptance speeches, etc, so they really commit themselves and can't say that they weren't utterly fooled.

Bonus points for giving up your anonymity afterwards and pointing out that you rigged the election in favour of a candidate you don't want to win.

Interesting idea, but I believe that this would cause a constitutional crisis, as the "winning" candidate and his/her party attempt to hang on to the presidency by "proving" that the fix didn't happen and that the encrypted message was a hoax, and the "losing" candidate and party demanding a re-vote.

As a member of the National Guard, I view this scenario with horror, as I'm one of the guys that would probably be called out to keep the peace. Not something I look upon with any enthusiasm...

When mentioning Diebold, it is always crucial to mention that they now call themselves Premier Election Systems, in an attempt to make people forget that they are "that" company.... you know, the one with broken and insecure voting machines.

When mentioning Diebold, it is always crucial to mention that they now call themselves Premier Election Systems, in an attempt to make people forget that they are "that" company.... you know, the one with broken and insecure voting machines.

But that doesn't make any sense! Our consultant from Accenture [wikipedia.org] assures us that Premier Election Systems has a terrific and unblemished reputation, and has nothing to do with the disgrace that was Diebold's voting machine division!

Be an election observer of both the machines and the servers. We need a pair of nerd boots of both republican and democrat persuasion at each tally server to ensure that no one can sit down and alter the unencrypted count files. This is the most important nerd activity you do. At the last election all my lawyer friends were working as observers but they were looking for something completely different than the real vote rigging activities.

Actually, I like the giant puppets concept - could be the way to go. I propose we construct a giant papier-mache Clippy god to scare people away from the voting venue. He could utter such abominable sayings as you appear to be trying to vote - would you like me to rain down burning sulphur upon you and your descendants?. I think this covers most requirements. As for the swing states, we just have to try to convince them of the merits of SWT [wikipedia.org].

Good luck getting anyone to vote in this country. We've had some of the lowest rates of voter turnout of any democracy for many, many election cycles now.

Besides, it is much easier to say "I didn't vote because there was no candidate that was running on [insert favorite cause here]". And as long as the non-voters continue to not vote (or just complain), we'll continue to have this same system.

Good luck getting anyone to vote in this country. We've had some of the lowest rates of voter turnout of any democracy for many, many election cycles now.

For someone to do anything requires some amount of motivation on the part of that person. For voting, that would mean getting to understand the issues and know the candidates, and then to form an opinion one way or another on those issues and where the candidates stand on them. What makes you think it would be a good idea to have unmotivated people vote when they obviously have no interest and, more than likely, no understanding, of the issues involved?

Very good point. I think this gets to the root of why those MTV "Rock the Vote!" style campaigns get on my nerves.

I'm all for people making the effort to learn what's going on in politics, and then being able to make an informed decision.

But at the same time, some people are simply apathetic. If you prod them to go out and vote (by selling the idea as trendy and "cool", applying peer-pressure, etc.), you wind up with people voting for completely wrong reasons. EG. I just like candidate X because he looks better on TV. The other guys look too old and ugly!

All things considered, I think we'd do just as well to have them opt out of the whole process, if that's all the effort they're going to put into it.

At the same time though? I *really* wish the people who don't like either of the two "major candidates" would get out there and vote 3rd. party, rather than skipping the process. That's where I'm at right now, myself. I can't bring myself to cast a vote for yet another person following in the footsteps of Bush, but Obama comes from the typical crooked Chicago politician pool, screwed us over by not fighting the telcom immunity bill, and has professed ideas for public healthcare that I think aren't going to work. Both candidates are apparently fine with a continuation of the "Patriot Act" too, which tells me a LOT about them.

That's why I'm going to cast a vote for Bob Barr. Frankly, the guy's kind of a "tool". He's just trying to ride the coat-tails of Ron Paul, and his V.P. already was heard admitting that he's really only running because he hopes it'll boost his popularity so he can get a book deal or radio show program in the future. But that's not the point. The point is, a vote for him is a protest vote the other guys can CLEARLY see they didn't earn.

Democratic leadership is just itching for their turn at the helm of the war machine.

WWIWWIIKoreaVietnam

Those weren't Republican Presidents who entered us into those wars. You're sadly mistaken if you think the Democrats want less war. What the Democratic leadership wants their own wars that benefit them financially and benefit them politically. They've said they had enough of Bush's war only because it doesn't help them. Have you not noticed how the all powerful Democrats in the house and senate, and Pel

The Republicans freed the slaves, and so as a black man I'm going to vote Republican this time around. *rolls eyes*

Please do not put much value on what a given party did historically, but rather what the party's leading candidates are most likely going to do given their own personal history. Yes, the Democrats were in charge as we jumped into a number of wars. However at the moment the Democrats want the support of those who are upset about the whole Iraq thing. Therefore they're playing the anti-war card. It's not that complicated.

There is some merit to your mention of the fact that many of the anti-war claims from the Democrats aren't quite what they were a number of months ago. This is not, however, even remotely related to the fact they were in charge as we went into WWI.

Voter turnout is historically the lowest for middle and lower income people, so if the well-to-do merely vote their pocket books and can dupe enough other people through flag-waving, we could easily get another Gilded age [wikipedia.org].

Frankly I have more faith in the average person then the zealots when it comes down to it.

I, too, put much stock in the belief that, fundamentally, the average person is good and has a strong moral compass. However, that is often not enough to make an informed decision.

For example, take an issue such as abortion. If you ask the average person, "Is it alright to kill babies?" What do you think they'll say? Their gut reaction, which will be nearly universal, is "absolutely not!" But there is more to the issue than that. There is the issue of unwanted pregnancy, rape, and other mitigating factors that need to taken into consideration that, at first glance, may seem like distant, secondary factors when held up against the horror of killing babies.

Or, take the issue of capital punishment. If you ask the average person, "Should we spare the lives of serial killer-rapists?" What do you think the answer will be? But, again, there are mitigating factors, such as the plethora of cases in which condemned men have been found not guilty of their crimes. Some before their execution, but many, unfortunately, afterwards. That may seem like small potatoes compared to the justice that should be given to serial killer-rapists. But not if you're one of the unfortunately condemned.

What is even sillier is that the freaking running of a country has little to do with issues such as abortion or gay marriage or whatever. Capital punishment perhaps is a little more relevant, but I think has been shown to have little effect on actual crime rates. Anyway, for issues like that wouldn't it make much more sense to vote on the issues rather than vote on people who may agree with you on one issue, but have completely opposite ideals for a lot of other things? IMO even if everyone voted for 'the third guy' or whatever, the country would still keep going to shit. That's pretty much why I've never voted (I live in the UK though, not the US).

I suppose the only issue I'd see affecting me as an individual in an immediate and direct way is changes in taxes. Politicians often make a big deal about that too, but overall tax levels tend to stay the same even if they are shifted to different places or spun in a different light. Rich people are still rich, poor people are still poor. Voting for a change in tax isn't going to make that much difference - educating yourself and getting a better job is (though in this case voting could make a difference if you found a politician sympathetic to this kind of issue, who will make it easier for people to go through nightclasses or open university courses, stuff like that). Better education should generally lead to a better economy (as long as you can keep people in the country!) at least, and that will be good for most people.

If I was allowed to vote on individual issues like abortion, capital punishment etc I think I would. But during the time that they are in office, politicians will have to deal with a lot more things besides those 'obvious' issues. And those little issues along the way are likely to be the things that change the face of a country, rather than whether they kill rapists or allow abortions. Lots of people in the US, UK and other countries protested against the war in Iraq, but their governments went along with it anyway. Besides, everyone knows (or perhaps just 'knows') that politicians often can't be trusted to do what they say they will do. When does that ever happen? What they have been claiming to be 'for' all along, they may be outright against, or just don't care about. When they get into power they can do whatever they want for a few years.

Sure, some politicians may want to get re-elected and therefore are forced to do a good job (or at least try to shift focus onto things that they know people will like and away from stuff like the PATRIOT act), but some will have their own hidden agendas. Voting just seems like such a poor way of 'making a difference'. Someone will say "but it's the best system we have", and that's kind of true, but all I see happening is people whining about republican this, democrat that, creating a pretty artificial divide and pointless groupthink system that just serves to create a lot of friction and distraction from actually getting on with the realities of improving government. Get rid of the politicians and the stupid amounts of time and money being wasted on the popularity campaigns, and get some people who actually want to manage the country, rather than people who want to become superstars. I know that's not going to happen though - the masses love their celebrities and are too easily fooled.

You see here is where I think you are totaly wrong."For example, take an issue such as abortion. If you ask the average person."The average person right now is pro choice. I am probably right around where the average is on this.I think abortion for convenience is immoral. I can not think of a fair and just way to make it illegal. Even the majority of pro-life people will live with the exception of rape, incest, and life of the mother.So I think this is a great example of where the average person has a good

So you're going to vote for the guy who you think can convince people to go for policies that you disagree with rather than vote for the guy who you think won't be able to get anything done on the policies you do agree with.

Godwin's law be damned (I'm certainly not trying to compare the policies of Barack Obama, or any candidate, for that matter, to Hitler), why don't we vote for Hitler. Sure, he's a facist and we don't like the things he stands for, but gosh he just speaks to people so well.

Again, I'm not implying there are any Hitlers in this election, but I am saying that a vote for the guy who makes you feel good inside is shallow and silly.

Jim Jones and Adolf Hitler stirred the emotions of the people, and the people followed them almost without question to disastrous results. We need a president who will try to convince us he is right and follow him, not one who will be assumed right because everybody loves him.

I will credit Credit Clinton for doing it, but it wasn't about policies but, but general leadership and making people feel good about the future.

Clinton also saved a lot of money by not asking Congress for it in the area of defense, and look where that got us as he let Al Qaeda grow for a decade, doing nothing about it. Now we get to pay a lot more due to his laxity.

It could be worse - he could have been giving arms & equipment to Al Qaeda. Man, I'm glad we've never had any presidents who were stupid enough to do that...

Because that's not true? I vote, 80% of the state votes against me, and my vote counts for nothing in the national election. It's pathetic.

Now, I still vote, but I don't have the illusion that my vote means anything in the presidential election. Winner take all politics is sure and certain death for minority candidates, and it can decide the national election as well, as in 2000.

I realize you're not actually advocating this kind of thinking, but I'd like to answer it just the same... in case others out there come across it.

If you KNOW your state is going to go one way or another (e.g., Massachusetts or Wyoming), vote third party. If the Libertarian or Green candidate [votetruth08.com] gets 5% this year, their party will get matching funds in 2012. Then they'll have something like one half of 1% of the money the big two have, instead of 1% of 1%.

This is counted nationwide, not by state, so this is a good way to make a difference, wherever you live.

Sane with people in states where the population is not even close to evenly distributed. For example, NY. The majority of things are decided by votes cast south of Westchester. Which is a completely different world as compared to upstate.

BOTH US Senators representing New York really represent NYC and Long Island. Upstate NY has no true representation in the Senate.

could you just vote for Mccain this time and save the hippy crap for the next election? it's kind of important.

You see what I did there?

Your statement shows a failure to recognize that there are a significant number of people who believe that McCain will take this country in the right direction and Obama the wrong. I am not one of them.

Your statement also shows a blatant disregard for a significant number people who believe that neither Obama nor McCain will take this country in the right direction. I am one of them. You are, in effect, asking me to suspend my principles in favor of your principles, and I'm sure you would be incensed if I were to suspend them in favor of those who support McCain. (In reality you probably wouldn't care, since I'm just some random internet dude, but you get the idea.)

Let me be frank. I know that this election will result in one of those two men as our next president. I fervently hope that it is Obama, because if we're going to have big spending I would rather see my tax dollars going to help the poor in my country than to fight wars of aggression. On this and likely several other points, your principles and mine match up. I cannot vote for Barack Obama, though, because he still wants more government while I want less. That is going to make far more difference in this country's direction in the long run as it factors into every single decision he makes, not just the hot-button ones that we're discussing now. It is for this same reason that I cannot vote for John McCain, though his stances on the hot-button issues would keep me from doing that anyway.

I am in a swing state, PA, so I'm seeing even more pressure to vote for Obama than I would otherwise. I seriously considered doing so, but have decided that in addition to following my principles, my vote for an alternative to the big two will make more of a statement precisely because I'm in a swing state. Everybody has a "lesser evil" choice; I don't think anybody when pressed will tell you that both nominees are exactly the same. Choosing to get out of the "lesser evil" game and vote for my principles, especially when my vote could conceivably make a difference, speaks volumes about my dissatisfaction with both political parties.

Actually, voter turnout is on the upturn [wikipedia.org], sure 56% is still lower than I'd like to see, but it's the youth vote which has been lacking. I think that Obama has a real chance of improving that number and even the very young governor of Alaska on the McCain ticket should generate some youth buzz. I still think that McCain will lose big, but the numbers of voters will be more respectable.

As long as elections in the US are a choice between fascism (Republicans) and socialism (Democrats), I will vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE by abstaining.

I would call that terrible short-sightedness. You are showing really nothing beyond total lack of concern. Have you even looked at a ballot? Ever looked at the other names that are listed?

Sure we hear almost exclusively about the candidates of the two major parties. And the third parties currently active are minor at best. But if you aren't even showing the initiative to cast a vote, then you are just allowing the system to continue un-checked.

You could do better by going and casting an empty ballot. Or even putting down your own name for president. Or Crusty the Clown or Mickey Mouse. Or even a damned ficus tree would be a better action than choosing to not vote. The two party system is defeating you when you choose to be so apathetic as to not bother going to the voting booth at all.

And if you honestly believe that there is no difference between the Democratic party and socialism, then you don't know squat about what the parties are actually proposing.

My state (NC) decided that my political party (Libertarian) wasn't worth keeping on the ballot, because they arbitrarily change the # of votes that that party has to get to be on the ballot every year. I'm not allowed to vote for the candidates that I want to vote for, hence, I don't vote. The whole system is a complete and total sham, anyway. It's just designed to make people think they have a choice, when in reality, it's all the same system, and the same crap.

If you have ever been to vote, you may have noticed that there are other choices on the ballot. You can even write in your own preference.

If you are interested, there is the Green Party, which often appeals to disaffected Democrats.

There is the Libertarian party, which sometimes appeals to the disaffected Republicans.

The Constitution party attempts to capture the spirit of the Founding Fathers and of the intent of our Constitution, although they have swapped the Founders' positive-secularism and Deism with a decidedly Christian view. So, this party sometimes appeals to the Christian demographic.

Those are the big alternatives. Of course, there are many other political parties in America. If you want communism, socialism, fascism, capitalism, centrism, and any other manner of "ism" that humans have invented or described, there is a party for you.

I personally am not affiliated with any political party, although I find virtues in all of the major parties (and also ideas that I do not agree with). But this does not prevent me from voting.

So, get involved. Ignore what people tell you about "throwing away your vote" or "as good as a vote for the bad guy." Vote for what you think is best.

The Democratic party is hardly what anyone thinking person would classify as a "classically conservative" party, or for that matter "classically liberal" either. They are 'Progressives" which is in fact a form of socialism.

Both classic liberalism and conservatism basically boil down to the same thing, "live and let live", where the role of the government is very limited; mostly to subjects such as natioanl defense and infrastructure. The only real difference is that one (conservatism) starts from a point

How difficult is it to vote in the USA? I.e. how much time does it take, is it generally convenient etc?

I ask, because last time I voted for something pointless (the party I was voting for would have won anyway) it was less than five minutes of my time for me to go to the polling station, pick up the form, mark it and drop it in the box. I know there's a lot of people that don't bother with even this, but the extra few % of red votes in the blue state can make a difference -- not in who gets in powe

Like "refactoring" from DOS 2.1 to include all the support for all the advancements in the technology since 1983 till now, while still being able to run on the 1983. computers - with exactly the same performance like today's computers.

There ARE times when you should just say "OK, let us start from scratch".You know... what Microsoft should have done with Windows instead of Vista.

Yep - all of them. Every person in the country who labels themselves Christian is a simplistic idiot that can't understand even the most basic of things. Thank God I have an atheist friend to log into slashdot for me, interpret my grunt-like muttering and type up responses on my behalf. Gotta go back to putting down the women and colored folk now.

I think that people who spend a lot of time on the internet build up a false sense of community size and influence. If one were spending a lot of time on Digg last year, they were probably surprised by how poorly Ron Paul did.

What percentage of Americans are regularly active on the internet? What percentage watch hours of t.v. a day?

I'm all for people getting out and doing something they believe in but the fact that this is compared to something involving Nader illustrates my point perfectly. It is a small group of people taking fringe actions what will not increase voting power by orders of magnitude.

According to the criteria, I would say contributing labor to key "political" software projects such as GPG or TOR would be best. It can be done as a hobby, definitely exploits our nerdiness, and absolutely goes outside the normal channels of influence.

Granted, this has nothing to do with getting a politician elected, but that's exactly the point. Taking direct action to solve the problems of privacy and government surveillance increases our "effective voting power" many times over, because we don't have to hope that whatever shmuck we put in office will do what we elected him to do. In a certain sense it makes us even more powerful than the president.

I guess my point is that the most powerful things nerds have done to change the political landscape haven't had anything to do (directly) with elections. Because our power and potential is bigger than any politician.

I'm Canadian, but I do hope Obama wins, In the recent weeks, I've been working on getting work in the US, I think it would be nice to expand my computer consulting horizons. As I've been following US politics for the last 10 yrs, I do think Obama is indeed going to be a great president. I would consider moving to the US if a president like Obama was elected!

But really, the problem with Obama, like anything else, are the myths propagated by others, or the misinformation about him. I say that anyone who wishes to help Obama (nerds included), only need to ensure that the facts are made clear to anyone willing to listen.

Nerds and the web, can obviously create ads for Obama such as "did you know" blurbs on their websites for example.

It's not about tricking people into voting for Obama, but about ensuring he's clearly understood by people. So, anyone who can clearly explain who Obama is, what he stands for and most of all, get his message across, is obviously going to help!

Dude, are you serious? Obama sold us out. He voted for telecom immunity for their illegal wiretaps, and thus proved he'll bend us over just as hard and fast as any other politician would. How can you say you want him as president, when he already killed our ability to have any faith in him?

If he'd voted against the bill, he might have gained the respect of a lot of sane-minded people, but at the same time, he'd have given McCain a classic soundbite of "Obama doesn't care about terror".

And now, he just gave McCain a classic soundbite of "Obama doesn't care about your privacy". Great victory, that!

The only politically expedient thing to do was abstain. Since he didn't do that, he's either an idiot, or actually supported the bill. Given that he doesn't seem like an idiot to me, the only possible conclusion is that he actually supported the heinous bill. Which disqualifies him from being a good presidential candidate.

"But really, the problem with Obama, like anything else, are the myths propagated by others, or the misinformation about him."

Really? That's it? My problem with Obama comes straight from his mouth, from his supporters' mouths, and even from his wife's mouth:

"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. T

What I don't get is why geeks would want someone as US President whose main focus will be to increase the role of government and tax the people who work hard. It seems to me that successful, hard-working professionals would rather have someone who will focus on less government and lower taxes rather than more government.

I mean lets look at McCain [issues2000.org] vs Obama [issues2000.org] on Taxes. McCain wants to keep taxes low across the board and cut federal spending. Obama wants to cut taxes for people earning less than $75k a year a

Frankly, I see the pick of Biden as saying "I'll have the voice of experience in my ear, so I know I'm not as likely to be doing something monumentally stupid or unrealistic while trying to change things."

"What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?" But the question itself is not inherently partisan.

You and I seem to have different ideas of what 'partisan' means.

Honestly, the best thing a nerd can do during an election is spread information. Not slanted information but stuff like the folks over at factcheck.org are doing. Another thing is discussing various differences in the voting process like trying to build a grassroots movement to move back to the popular vote or opening up discussions on runoff voting. There's plenty of ways to inform the public, possibly the most important and least rewarded job--in my mind anyhow. I find it humorous when Democrat workers go around alienating Republican voters and vice versa.

If you approach me with the mindset that I need to be voting for your candidate I'm probably not going to react well to it.

This is one reason why I was gung-ho for Ron Paul even though I disagreed with him as to the extent of the shrinking that the Federal Government needed. I figured that there would be no way he would get his more extreme cuts past Congress so he would wind up trimming the size of the Federal Government, not hacking and slashing it. (Without Ron Paul in the race, I'm an Obama supporter.)

If you want to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, stop voting for the flawed two-party system. Simply vote third party to show that you want to be involved but hate the choices given to us by the corporate controlled parties.

People need to start demanding that these 3rd party candidates get air time and in the debates. I'm really hoping that google or someone else has a debate with some of these candidates.

The best thing you can do to make real change and a difference is to take over your local government and work up. Get some friends and like minded people and start running for city council, judges, etc....

Exactly. As a conservative, I'm at the opposite end of the political spectrum from most Slashdotters on a lot of issues (although I agree with most of you on issues with technological implications such as net neutrality, privacy, that sort of thing). It's true, I hate the Democratic party with a passion. But over the last four years I've come to hate the Republican party just as much. It's the system that's messed up. We don't have real representation any more. I won't be voting for Obama because I disagree with almost every single policy he has, but I don't trust McCain either. I haven't exactly decided on who yet, but I'll be voting 3rd party this November.

Lets say you are pulling for Obama. Go into Call of Duty 4 and change your name to "McCain 2008" and run around with the shotgun. Or go play Counter-strike and change your name to "McCain Roxors" and camp in a dark corner with a sniper rifle.

You can also go into people's skype channels and spam your love for the candidate that you do not want to win. People will be so put-off by your actions that you may just swing an independent in the opposite direction!

Affecting a political outcome and changing the policies of your government is NOT a fucking hobby. If you want change you need to put forth commitment and while this might not be a full-time job, it is a second job at the very least. This is not another fucking coding project you can fork if you don't like the way things are going, you can't call others noobs, and you actually have to learn something about social interaction if you want others to listen to your ideas. If you treat this like another OSS project then it will languish in code hell, a perpetual alpha with the occasional vulture picking at the carcass every now and then.

Politics is a process everyone should get involved in and contribute to--but it doesn't have to be everyone's full-time job. A few will treat the problem space as important enough to them to make a job out of it, but most of the contribution eventually comes from everyone else. The real strength of the Internet masses is in their mass. Only a teeny tiny bit of it needs to be applied to make important things happen, with just enough guidance to make it non-random. See Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody [amazon.com]. He describes a tiny surplus of effort as enough to create thousands of complete Wikipedia projects every year.

So yes, let's look at solutions that can be done as a hobby, perhaps guided by someone for whom it is a bit more than a hobby. Structure the project to encourage the masses to contribute their single raindrop, and watch the flood change the world.

In these days of sloppy journalism and down right bias on mainstream channels in the US then surely the most "effective" is to learn from the real scum of the political process the people who do the anonymous negative campaigning, shooting malicious falsehoods out into the world via leaflets and other approaches.

Nerds could go hugely further than this by creating fake sites, bombarding social networking sites and editing wikipedia to spread these rumours and even create "verifiable" sources. Low quality videos suggesting illegal or immoral behaviour could be uploaded onto YouTube and main stream news channels could be bombarded with votes/emails/text pushing an agenda, view or revelation.

Oh or did you mean what nerds could do on their own rather than what they will be paid to do in this campaign?

Sorry, I'm just pissed off at the micro-issue morons. Gun control, telco immunity, abortion rights, etc. These "micro-issues' distract from the whole.

You aren't going to EVER get someone with whom you agree with 100% all the time unless its you.

Weigh the pros and cons of the two candidates, CAREFULLY, and think about who will best serve the country as a whole. Weigh the VP choice as well, McCain is old enough to die or become incapacitated and Obama is black, I can imagine the KKK or some white supremacy group trying to off him ASAP. Those guys are scary crazy, if you think islamic terrorists are crazy, you haven't seen the KKK. They'll kill a black man with no remorse, they enjoy it. (It isn't a racist troll and don't tell me you haven't heard it before. I'm just an engineer looking at the potential issues.)

Third party? Don't be an idiot. A third party will not get elected in this cycle, maybe we can work for a viable third party over time, but not now.

This election is IMPORTANT. Don't screw around and take your citizenship and right to vote seriously. Vote for the best all around package, knowing full well that there are no perfect people, and they will disagree with you on various issues, but *mostly* represent you.

As for the micro-issues:

Telco immunity. Think about this, yea, they should have been nailed to the wall, but they WERE ordered by the government to do something. It is hard to resist being compelled like that. The real prosecution should be against BushCo. If a cop told you to help him, you'd feel compelled to help. If it is illegal, the cop is responsible, not you.

Third party? Don't be an idiot. A third party will not get elected in this cycle, maybe we can work for a viable third party over time, but not now.

My state's going for McCain - no ifs, ands, or buts. I'm voting for Barr to send a message to the Republicans.

But beyond that, your argument against voting for third parties is stupid in a way that a self-proclaimed engineer should immediately grok. If third parties call only win the N+1 election, where N is the first one where they make a good showing and demonstrate viability, then at some point you have to have N or you'll never get to N+1. If the people using your logic last time had thought it throu

Every year, when we get close to the election, tons of people come out of the woodwork and say, "Both candidates are evil, I've lost my will to vote, I'll vote third party. Why can't they ever nominate someone good?"

If you recall, tons of people said "Both Al Gore and George Bush are lame politicians" in 1999. Many of those people didn't vote. And simply because Al Gore seemed dull, we lost out on the chance to have a politician who really cared about environmental issues and who would have applied some moderation to the response to terrorism instead of going cowboy.

The trouble is, people, in general, are flawed. The sheer number of decisions a person has to make each and every day means that some of them will be wrong. It's simply not possible to find "a good candidate," because every human being has made a mistake in the past. Part of the reason Senators don't usually become Presidents is that they have a solid, visible voting record and lots of conflicting demands on their votes, so that anyone can point to and say "Haha! This one decision was wrong! You can't be trusted!" By contrast, Governors and Generals seem to have less visible records, so people can't play the "gotcha" game as often.

Please stop thinking that an election is a chance to find a perfect person and vote for him or her. That's not the way elections work; if you keep waiting for a perfect candidate you'll never vote. Elections work by presenting you with candidates, and you get to judge which of them you think will do the best job.

I'll confess this: in 1999, I listened to the candidates and decided that I would be a John McCain supporter. I decided to support him because I looked at Bill Bradley, Al Gore, George Bush, and him, and I decided McCain seemed like the best leader. Unfortunately, after the election, everything I learned about McCain gradually turned negative and everything I learned about Al Gore reinforced his solid reputation. In this campaign, I know a little about Obama and (I think) a fair amount about McCain. Both of them have had to abandon their key supporters to reach across the aisle and compromise with others, but I find McCain's decisions more wrong than Obama's.

Obama showed great courage not backing a junkie's-quick-fix approach to gasoline prices.McCain supports creationism / intelligent design in schools.McCain sponsored an amendment to ban torture, and then meekly backed away when George Bush announced that he'd ignore the law.

I'm voting for Obama. I may not agree with everything he does, but I think he's the best person to repair the damage that Bush has done to our country.

One thing you can do that isn't blindingly partisan is to volunteer as an election judge. Election staff are in short supply in many places in the country, and as new (insecure) equipment has been purchased by states, a lot of older staff have retired from the process, overwhelmed by the march of technology. Being a geek is a good fit for this problem.

More staff at the polls makes things run more smoothly, and that encourages turnout in future elections, and even in current ones when people who stayed away hear on Election Day that the line moved quickly, and decide to head in and vote after all. Bigger turnout generally favors Democrats, so if you want to help Obama this is a good thing to do.

But even if you support McCain or someone else, it's a fun, interesting experience, and you'll be helping the country express itself. A lot of staff positions at the polls require a member of each major party, so both Republicans and Democrats are needed to staff the polls sufficiently.

Voting is how we buy in to the government we end up with; even when we vote the loser, we participate in the process and that makes us stakeholders. When you become part of the election process, you facilitate this for your community.

It's actually a sound idea, couched in cynicism. Some people really shouldn't vote. For instance, everyone that doesn't care enough to find their own way to the polls. If they have to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way by volunteers, I don't want their crappy, underinformed vote influencing the election.

Right now, the elections are basically a coin toss, in part because of all the misguided "get out the vote" programs. Yes, you have a r

Look at the headline. Now look at the question. Observe: "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help make a difference in November?". This question, being what is implied in TFS, is not partisan, is it now?

He is hosting a "Rally for the Republic," [rallyfortherepublic.org] in Minneapolis, MN the same time the RNC is going on which has so far sold 10,000 out of 15,000 tickets at $17.76 a piece. How many Presidential contenders in history can say that?

Ron Paul has said many times that his campaign for President exceeded every one of his expectations. His goal wasn't to win the Presidency, but to inject different ideas into the race.

The goal for his continued campaign is to get like minded people into every facet of government. There are